Control and Transparency:

Your browser does not support iframes.

Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "Control and Transparency:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Voluntarily revealing demographic information in the Demographics condition did not affect willingness to answer sensitive questions, even though the objective risk of disclosure was higher

Slide13

Misplaced confidences – Study 3

P

articipants who

had an explicit option to publish

their answers

felt less

privacy

concerned

and thus became more likely to not just

answer

, but

also

allow the

publication

of their answers

Slide14

Implicit control: only 15% of participants answered ALL questions.Explicit aggregate controls: 37% answered and gave permission to publish ALL their answers.Explicit granular controls: 28% answered and gave permission to publish ALL their answers.Explicit aggregate controls with demographics: 39% answered and gave permission to publish ALL their answers and their gender, age, and birth country (making them easier for a stranger to identify).

Misplaced confidences – Study 3

Slide15

ConclusionsPrivacy controls may lower concerns regarding the actual accessibility and usability of information, driving people to reveal more sensitive information to larger and riskier audiencesNumerous government and corporate entities in the U.S. have advocated self-regulatory ‘choice and consent’ models of privacy protection that essentially rely on users’ awareness and controlOur findings suggest that control over personal information may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for privacy protectionTechnologies meant to assist users for better privacy decision making may end up exacerbating the risks they face

Misplaced confidences

Slide16

Sleights of Privacy:Framing, Disclosures, and the Limits of Transparency

But, as predicted, effect of accessibility was smaller in the case of certain publication: significant interaction of control and accessibility (F(1,196) = 4.12, p < 0.05)

Slide33

Misplaced confidences – Study 2

When disclosure was uncertain, participants were less willing to answer intrusive

questions if the audience was composed of students and faculty as compared to

students only (t(98) = 3.92, p < .001). This difference was, however, smaller and barely

significant when disclosure was certain (t(98) = .864, p = .052)

Slide34

Sleights of Privacy – Study 1

Design of Study 1: 2-survey study, 4 conditions, between-subjects

Condition 1:

Low

privacy

protections

(

identified

survey

,

through

email

address

)

which

did

not

change

across

the 2

phases

Condition 2:

Decreasing

p

rivacy

protections

,

from high (anonymous survey) to low

Condition 3: High

privacy

protections

which

did

not

change

across

the 2

phases

Condition 4: Increasing

privacy

protections

,

from

low

to

high

Surveys on sensitive behaviors, such as drug use or related to sex-life

Slide35

Sleights of Privacy – Study 1

Design of Study 1

Slide36

Main Result: People tend to disclose more (less) if provided with increasing (decreasing) levels of protection than when they perceive no change, but in fact end up with the same level of protection386 participants (43% females, average age = 30, SD = 13.5)In Survey 1, participants disclosed more if they were provided high protection, but this effect vanishes in Survey 2, suggesting that people may fall into some default mode of disclosureFor the most sensitive questions, participants presented decreasing protection disclosed 14% less (p<.05) than participants that were presented no change in privacy noticesParticipants that were presented increasing privacy protection shared 11% more (p<.05) than participants that were presented no change in privacy notices